Evaluating pathologist practices in peripheral blood smear review: A comprehensive practice survey

Author:

Moore Margaret1ORCID,Chen Xueyan2,Sadigh Sam3,Seifert Robert4,Mindiola Romero Andres E5ORCID,Pozdnyakova Olga6,Courville Elizabeth L1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of Virginia Health, University of Virginia School of Medicine , Charlottesville, VA , US

2. Translational Science and Therapeutics Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington , Seattle, WA , US

3. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , US

4. Department of Pathology, Immunology and Lab Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine , Gainesville, FL , US

5. Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center , Albuquerque, NM , US

6. The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA , US

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Widely accepted standardized criteria for peripheral blood (PB) smear review do not exist. The aim of this study was to collect data regarding PB smear review practices across multiple institutions, with a focus on pathologist review. Methods A 23-question survey was developed by members of the Society for Hematopathology (SH) Education Committee and distributed to SH members. The survey included questions on practice environment and PB smear review practices, including trainee involvement. Results Of 725 members contacted, 137 (19%) completed the entire survey. Over half of practices examined 5 to 20 smears a day. All respondents reported using complete blood count/differential leukocyte count data and clinical history as part of smear review. The reported proportion of laboratory-initiated vs clinician-requested reviews varied across respondents. Clinician-requested smear reviews were more likely to be billed and issued as a separate pathology report. Glass slide review (as opposed to digital microscopy) was used by most respondents. All respondents affirmed that PB smear review is an essential component of pathology training programs. Numerous free-text comments were submitted by respondents regarding their own experiences with PB smear review and suggested improvements. Conclusions This survey elucidated the spectrum of practice patterns for pathologist review of blood smears and identified potential areas for process improvement.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3